Uncategorized

News Roundup

The case of a former Stanford University student, Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman at a party on the university’s campus is receiving national attention this week because Turner was sentenced to six months in county jail and three years of probation.  The case is viewed by some as an example of a privileged white person receiving an unjustifiably lenient sentence for a serious crime.  The Wall Street Journal has an overview article here. The Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge who sentenced Turner, Aaron Persky, has come under fire; an online petition calling for his recall has received nearly a million signatures.  The victim’s statement to the court, largely directed at Turner, has become popular online and is available here.  An editorial from the San Jose Mercury News arguing that Turner’s sentence was too light is available here.  An opinion piece from the same paper, written prior to sentencing, arguing that a jail rather than a prison sentence would be appropriate is available here, and a similar piece from the National Association of Public Defenders is available here.  Keep reading for more news.

Read more

blank

The Statutory Felony Disqualification for Self-Defense

I am working on a new edition of the self-defense book I wrote in 1996. As in the story of Rip Van Winkle, a lot has changed in twenty years. Most notably, the General Assembly adopted new statutes in 2011 on self-defense and related defenses. This blog post addresses one of those provisions, in G.S. 14-51.4, which disqualifies a person from relying on self-defense while committing, attempting to commit, or escaping from the commission of a felony. North Carolina appellate courts have not yet considered the meaning of this provision. Cf. State v. Rawlings, ___ N.C. App. ___, 762 S.E.2d 909 (2014) (felony disqualification did not apply to case in which defendant’s offense predated enactment of provision, and court expressed no opinion on proper construction of provision).

Read more

Fourth Circuit Reverses Graham: No Warrant Required for Historical Cell Site Location Information

Last year, a panel of the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015). The panel ruled that “the government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it obtains and inspects a cell phone user’s historical [cell site location information (CSLI)] for an extended period of time. . . . Its inspection by the government, therefore, requires a warrant, unless an established exception to the warrant requirement applies.” I discussed Graham here and here. Last week, the en banc Fourth Circuit reversed the panel, ruling that under the third-party doctrine, a cell phone subscriber has no reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell site location information that he or she shares with a service provider, so it isn’t a Fourth Amendment “search” when law enforcement obtains such information, and a warrant isn’t required. The en banc opinion is here. This post discusses the opinion and considers the possibility of Supreme Court review or action by Congress.

Read more

News Roundup

Reuters reports that following rehearing en banc of a case decided last year, the Fourth Circuit has ruled that police do not need a warrant to obtain historical cell site location information from cell phone service providers.  The majority opinion concluded that the third party doctrine precludes a person from claiming a legitimate expectation of privacy in the location information because it has been voluntarily conveyed to the service provider.  The court’s opinion is available here.  Keep reading for more news.

Read more

blank

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

[Editor’s note: Emily Coward, the author of today’s post, is an attorney who works with the indigent defense education team at the School of Government. She is a co-author of Raising Issues of Race in North Carolina Criminal Cases.]

In Foster v. Chatman, a 7-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that prosecutors in Georgia discriminated on the basis of race during jury selection in a 1987 death penalty trial. This post explains the ruling and considers its impact on Batson challenges in North Carolina.

Read more

What Level of Suspicion Is Required to Arrest for a Probation Violation?

There aren’t very many federal cases about North Carolina probation. When we get one, I’m inclined to write about it. In Jones v. Chandrasuwan, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. 2016), the Fourth Circuit announced a new rule about the level of suspicion required to arrest a probationer for a suspected probation violation.

Read more

News Roundup

As the Baltimore Sun reports, a criminal trial against one of the Baltimore police officers charged in connection with the death of Freddie Gray last year ended this week with the officer, Edward Nero, being acquitted on all charges.  According to the report, Nero’s acquittal on several misdemeanors came after a five-day bench trial that involved a novel theory of assault based on Nero detaining Gray without justification.  The Baltimore Sun also has an opinion piece from former Baltimore police officers that argues that Nero, characterized as having only a tangential role in the incident that culminated in Gray’s death, should not have been criminally charged.  Cases against other officers facing more serious charges are scheduled to be tried in the future.  Keep reading for more news.    

Read more

The Meaning of Custody During Traffic Stops Under Miranda v. Arizona and Berkemer v. McCarty

The 50th anniversary of the landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), will occur in a few weeks on June 13. As everyone knows, the case required a set of warnings and waiver of rights before a statement obtained during custodial interrogation could be introduced during the government’s presentation of its evidence at trial. The case spawned many thousands of appellate cases throughout federal and state courts. And the United States Supreme Court has issued several rulings that have clarified, extended, or confined Miranda’s scope.

This post will briefly review the meaning of custody during traffic stops by focusing on the Supreme Court’s most significant opinion on this issue: Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). [For a discussion of all significant aspects of Miranda, see the text on pages 534-52 and case summaries on pages 578-640 of Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina (4th ed. 2011), and pages 87-89 (text) and 95-100 (case summaries) of the 2015 supplement.]

Read more